In a crisis — any crisis — The Prosperos offers Translation. Translation Saturday Meetings is a weekly series of Translation presentations by veteran Translators, live and up to date on the issues of the day.
It is not a Translation workshop, It is not a Translation class. It is not a group Translation in the usual sense, though group participation is encouraged.
It is, however, restricted to those who have taken Translation class. So if you have never taken Translation class, check the calendar tab on The Prosperos website (TheProsperos.org) or get in touch with us and we will schedule a class.
Last week our sense testimony was: War is always destructive, violent, obscene and unnecessary and often based on misinformation. When love is the foundation of war, leaders can use that love to promote war. War is love divided. And our conclusion was: Truth is indivisible love.
Stephan: For three years, since I really saw and understood the trend — See SR archives — I have been telling you about what I call The Great Schism Trend. The United States has become culturally two different countries in a single nation. It is this division that is tearing the United States apart, and I do not think it will heal until we emerge from the oncoming crisis that will begin in 2040, and there is a culture-wide recognition in America that fostering wellbeing must be a society’s main priority. I urge you to click through and read the Pew Research study, and look at all the charts. I also urge you, particularly if you have children, to consider relocating to a strongly Blue state. They will be safer and more supportive of wellbeing as this trend continues.
These are countries whose culture is more supportive of fostering wellbeing
53% of U.S. adults say Americans have bad morals and ethics. Americans are more likely than people in other countries surveyed in 2025 to question the morality of their fellow countrymen, according to Pew Research Center surveys in 25 countries.
We asked people around the world to rate the morality and ethics of others in their country.In nearly all countries surveyed, more people say that others in their country have somewhat or very good morals than say their compatriots display somewhat or very bad levels of morality.
The United States is the only place we surveyed where more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%).
Because we have never asked this question before, we don’t know whether a majority of Americans have long held a skeptical view of the ethics of fellow Americans, or if it’s something new – and if so, what’s driving it. But partisan politics appear to play a role.
Robert Reich, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at University of California – Berkeley and Former Secretary of Labor – Raw Story
Stephan: Here is Robert Reich’s commentary on the poll in the previous article. As you saw in my comment on the poll report, I completely agree with him. The Great Schism Trend was predicted in my Remote Viewing project, but I did not properly comprehend how destructive it was going to be.
A demonstrator shouts in front of Trump Tower in New York City. Credit: Eduardo Munoz / Reuters
A survey released last Thursday by the Pew Research Center finds that 53 percent of American adults describe the morality and ethics of our fellow citizens as “bad” (ranging from “somewhat bad” to “very bad”).
This puts Americans way out front of other nations on the we-hate-our-compatriots scale. In the 24 other countries polled by Pew, most people called their fellow citizens somewhat good or very good.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from the United States is Canada, where 92 percent say their fellow Canadians are good, while just 7 percent say they’re bad.
Why are we so down on our fellow citizens? It may have something to do with our politics.
Some 30 years ago, my dear friend, the late Republican Senator Alan Simpson, told me Democrats viewed Republicans as stupid and Republicans viewed Democrats as evil.
In the digital age, what drives interest and engagement are algorithms and entertainment, not expertise and deliberation. We need to restore trust in expert voices, but how do you protect ideas an algorithm can’t measure?
L. Jason Anastasopoulos argues that even Plato would have trouble gaining traction and followers today. “If he launched a Substack tomorrow, the algorithm would take one look at Book VI of The Republic and bury it beneath ‘5 Morning Habits That Changed My Life,’” writes Anastasopoulos. “The machinery we have built to distribute ideas would, with remarkable efficiency, filter out most of the thinking that built Western civilization.”
The Journal of Democracy is published quarterly in January, April, July, and October. Members of the press and members of Congress who wish to receive electronic access should email our managing editor. For more information, please visit our website or send us an email.
Subscribe nowfor full access to the Journal of Democracy archives.
Image credit: Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images
Limerence is a psychological term for an intense, involuntary state of romantic infatuation with another person, marked by obsessive thoughts and a strong desire for emotional reciprocation.
The term was coined by psychologist Dorothy Tennov in her 1979 book Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love.
Core features of limerence
People experiencing limerence typically have:
1. Intrusive thinking
The person (sometimes called the limerent object) constantly occupies your thoughts.
2. Emotional dependency on their response
Small signals from them create intense highs or lows.
3. Idealization
You focus on their positive qualities and minimize flaws.
4. Strong longing for reciprocation
What you want most is confirmation that they feel the same way.
5. Sensitivity to ambiguity
Uncertainty (“Do they like me?”) fuels the obsession.
Physical and emotional symptoms
racing heart or nervous excitement around them
difficulty concentrating on other things
daydreaming or replaying interactions
fear of rejection combined with hope
Limerence vs. love
Tennov argued that limerence is not the same as mature love:
Limerence
Mature Love
obsessive
stable
fueled by uncertainty
based on mutual knowledge
idealizes the other
accepts flaws
intense but unstable
deeper and longer-lasting
How long it lasts
Limerence usually lasts months to a few years, especially when the relationship is unclear or unfulfilled.
???? Many psychologists think limerence overlaps with what earlier writers simply called “being in love” or infatuation, but Tennov emphasized the obsessive and almost addictive quality of the experience.
Limerence tends to happen most strongly with unavailable or ambiguous partners. That pattern shows up repeatedly in Tennov’s research.
Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love
Author Dorothy Tennov, Ph.D., on Love and Limerence:
It was over 35 years ago that, having become convinced through personal experience and the writings of others of the enormous significance of that aspect of the human reproductive process known as romantic love, I elected to explore the subject systematically.
My journey of exploration occurred in three identifiable phases. During the first phase, the Phase of Wandering and Wondering Through Questionnaires and Testimonials, I was primarily involved in other topics, but the “love cards” assessments, in which students anonymously selected statements that applied to them and rejected those that did not, and the paper and pencil surveys submitted to groups continued to supply evidence of the importance of the topic, and of its prevalence, but I had not advanced beyond Shakespeare in understanding. Toward the end of that first phase, my emphasis had begun to shift from answers to questions posed by an investigator to the collection of personal testimonies, those of volunteers as well as those of published autobiographers, novelists, and historians.
Transition to the second phase, the Phase of Limerence, was abrupt. It happened in the fall of 1973. Earlier that year I had presented the first formal paper on the subject at the meetings of the American Psychological Association. That paper, titled “Sex differences in romantic love among college students,” was based entirely on questionnaire results. There were sex differences in pencil and paper reports, but, as I was later to learn, examination of the details of the experience revealed more sex similarities than differences in the phenotypical experience. The discovery, later that year, of people who had not, did not and apparently could not imagine themselves having the experience that I was describing, marked a turning point. By the time of a second formal paper in 1977, I had arrived at the conceptions found in Love and Limerence, and had begun to write the book.
The third phase began with the publication of Love and Limerence. It was the Phase of Confirmation. Love and Limerence was based largely on interviews that exposed the weakness of paper and pencil assessments. The words of love admitted of different meanings. New data in the form of voluntary written testimonials poured in from readers of the book. Many of these letters used the same “What you describe is exactly what happened to me.” Others thanked me for allowing them to know that they were not alone, that as crazy as the condition was, it was not a sign of mental ill-health, but a normal phenomenon. The state was one of madness, but the person undergoing the experience was not (necessarily) mad.
In hindsight, it should not seem surprising to the human nature scientist that there should be built into us through evolution control over reproductive functioning that supercedes other motivations. According to what I refer to as Limerence Theory, limerence is an interaction between the feelings of one person and the actions of another. It appears to occur across sexual, racial, age, cultural, and other categories of humans and it endures as long as do the conditions that sustain it. When intense, it crowds other motives out of the psyche.
It should be noted that Limerence is not synonymous with meanings customarily attached to the term “infatuation.” Furthermore, and most importantly, it is entirely absent in some relationships and in some people. Finally, in my judgment, both limerence and nonlimerence represent normal functioning.
Limerence presents problems for the modern individual, causing inattention to other aspects of life, especially to responsibilities and to other relationships. Limerence for someone other than the spouse is a major cause of marital and family disruption. Furthermore, the limerent’s behavior may hinder rather than enhance a relationship with the desired person if a response in kind does not occur. When frustrated, limerence may produce such severe distress as to be life threatening.
People’s reaction to Limerence Theory depends partly on their acquaintance with the evidence for it and partly on personal experience. People who have not experienced limerence are baffled by descriptions of it and sometimes resistant to the evidence that it exists. To such outside observers, limerence seems pathological. Although often the subject of romantic poetry and fiction, it has been called an addiction, an indication of low self-esteem, irrational, neurotic, erotomanic, and delusional. To people who are unacquainted with it first-hand, it inconceivable that any person should assign so much importance to another person. Fortunately, direct experience is not necessary to someone who reads the evidence. There are many scientifically known phenomena that are not directly perceivable. Although self-report is traditionally regarded with suspicion by scientists, reports …
Dorothy Jane Tennow known as Dorothy Tennov, was an American psychologist who, in her 1979 book, Love and Limerence – the Experience of Being in Love, introduced the term “limerence”.
On March 6, Harry Styles released his fourth studio album, Kiss All The Time. Disco, Occasionally. Styles has long maintained his footprint in the elusive sands of the pop culture world, responsible for the tears of hysterical teenage fan girls for nearly two decades now. Since branching off into a solo career, his creative direction has matured, becoming increasingly exploratory. The album nosedives into the diverse, electric sound of pop music, for the most part displaying seasoned expertise and confidence as he plays with sonic themes that aren’t necessarily what gained him his initial fame.
For the most part, KATTDO emphasizes its sound over its lyricism. Styles’ past solo work frequently focused on expressing emotional depth with vulnerable lyricism, tonally distancing himself from his previous boy band’s pop-hit-fishing reputation. Now that he is a decade past the end of his One Direction days, an embrace of pop isn’t an indicator of being a one-trick pony. If anything, this project denotes a true artistic appreciation for the genre in his own way.
The first single released for this project, “Aperture,” epitomizes the vibrant sound Styles wields. The song feels like the moments at a party where the lights ripple and the bass is felt beneath your feet on the beaten-down dance floor. Like locking eyes with someone you’ve never seen before and dancing in a free, momentous euphoria. His voice ascends as the song builds. Employing a quick tempo and laser beam like sound effects, the song annihilates inhibition and properly orients listeners into the vibe Styles is curating.
“American Girls” is timeless yet nostalgic — a classic pop hit. It’s the song blasting driving down the highway in a friend’s car with the roof down, hair blowing wildly in the wind on a hot summer day. It isn’t too adventurous, but therein lies its charm. Where some pop pundits may be inclined to bob some Billboard top 10 bait, Harry’s lighthearted addition feels authentic — quintessential pop while not feeling like a copout to be palatable.
While many of the songs are upbeat, Styles plays around with the pace of the album, occasionally pulling the listener off from the dancefloor. “Coming Up Roses” is an endearing track where Styles speaks more earnestly about his love life, finishing with a swelling orchestra — a welcome contrast to KATTDO’s electronic pervasion. However, a weaker moment, “Paint By Numbers,” lacks value in the album’s storytelling. It falls sonically flat aside other tracks with the lyricism not doing much to recover it. The track reveals the difficulty in balancing different levels of energy in one project, and ultimately didn’t feel like it earned its place. Both, however, are not as strong as other moments on the album.
“Dance No More” is a refreshing callback to the origins of blending synth and funk music with a Harry Styles twist. The bassline is David Bowie during his Young Americans era. It’s Rick James. It’s INXS. This track is nothing too lyrically insightful, but dance music doesn’t necessarily need to be. It speaks to its audience through how it makes people move and this song definitely has that transient capability.
The album is overall an expression of romance. Dance music is a romantic phenomenon; to release energy through the music and feel free enough to let loose is an act of art. As far as this album’s claim to disco, this work is not an attempt at a copycat revival of the genre, nor does it wish to upkeep the genre throughout, thus “occasionally” being specified in the title. Rather, it captures the genre’s spirit in a more modern take. The fluctuation between amped up synths and stripped back ballads was certainly a risk that felt choppy more often than not, leaving a desire to get back to the disco vibe. But that feeling in itself represents excelling in this new creative phase for Styles.
Translation is a 5-step process of “straight thinking in the abstract” comparing and contrasting what seems to be truth with what you can syllogistically, axiomatically and mathematically (using word equations) prove is the truth. It is not an effort to change, alter or heal anything other than our consciousness.
The claims in a Translation should be outrageous and mind-blowing, but they are always (or should always be) based on self-evident syllogistic reasoning. Here is one Translation from this week.
1) Truth is that which is so. That which is not truth is not so. Therefore Truth is all there is. Truth being all is therefore total, therefore whole, therefore complete. I think therefore I am. Since I am and since Truth is all that is, therefore the beingness of me is Truth, therefore the beingness of me is total, whole, complete, perfect. Since there is no being without awareness of that being, therefore Truth is consciousness/awareness. Therefore the awareness/consciousness of me is Truth.
2) I have pelvic pain due to an unresolved conflict with my father.
Word-tracking: pelvis: hara, physical and energetic center of body, seat of life force, core, center, gut pain: punishment for wrongdoing, wrong being. resolution: to settle a dispute, solve a problem or conflict. conflict: incompatible urges, passions passion: patience, enthusiasm father: he who begets, originator
3) Truth being all is therefore without limit, therefore there is no beginning or ending to Truth, therefore Truth is infinite. Truth being infinite, there is no center to Truth OR the center of Truth is everywhere. Truth being without beginning or ending, there is no father (or originator) in Truth, therefore Truth is Fatherless. Truth being all that is, there is no power/force other than Truth, therefore Truth is omnipotent. Truth being all that is, therefore there is nothing other than truth, therefore Truth is one. Truth being one, there can be no conflicting forces or passions, therefore Truth is harmonious omnipotence. Truth being all that is, there can be no wrong being. Since there is no wrong being, there is no wrong doing, therefore Truth is blameless.
4) Truth is infinite. The center of Truth is everywhere. Truth is Fatherless. Truth is omnipotent. Truth is one. Truth is harmonious omnipotence. Truth is blameless.
5) Truth is fatherless, blameless, harmonious omnipotence.
Weekly Invitational Translation Group invites your participation. If you would like to submit a Translation on any subject, feel free to send your weekly Translation to zonta1111@aol.com and we will anonymously post it on the Bathtub Bulletin on Friday.
Eckhart Tolle Mar 11, 2026???? Become a Channel member and get added perks: bit.ly/JoinETYT Eckhart Tolle explains how comparison with others becomes the foundation of the ego’s identity. By becoming aware of this unconscious pattern, we can step out of the cycle of comparison and rediscover a deeper sense of self beyond the mind. ???? Find New Meaning And Purpose After Personal Crisis ???? Are you currently navigating a period of intense difficulty, unsure of what to do or which way to turn? Through six hours of carefully curated teachings and practices with Eckhart, you’ll discover the unique potential for spiritual growth that presents itself during the dark night. Learn more: https://bit.ly/awakening-through-the-…
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove Mar 12, 2026 James Tunney, LLM, is an Irish barrister and author of The Mystery of the Trapped Light: Mystical Thoughts in the Dark Age of Scientism plus The Mystical Accord: Sutras to Suit Our Times, Lines for Spiritual Evolution; also TechBondAge: Slavery of the Human Spirit, Human Entrance to Transhumanism: Machine Merger and the End of Humanity, and AI-Govnerveance: Care and Possession in Dustopia. His most recent book is Trotsky vs Jesus: Battle of the AI-Millennium. His website is https://www.jamestunney.com/ James examines Leon Trotsky as a militant atheist whose vision of permanent, worldwide revolution ultimately leads toward technocracy, posthumanism, and spiritual erasure. He contrasts Trotsky’s materialist worldview with Jesus Christ, arguing that Christ represents not a political revolution, but a profound spiritual counter-revolution grounded in moral restraint and inner transformation. Tunney traces how Trotskyist ideas persist across left and right ideologies today, shaping modern systems of power, AI governance, and global control. 00:00:00 Introduction: Trotsky, revolution, and spirituality 00:05:03 Trotsky’s historical significance and revolutionary methods 00:10:09 Militant atheism as trostky’s driving force 00:15:33 Materialism and technocracy as inevitable outcomes 00:18:26 Permanent revolution and global strategy 00:23:12 Infiltration and political subterfuge 00:29:56 Trotsky in literature and modern politics 00:34:45 Jesus as spiritual counter-revolutionary 00:41:15 AI, posthumanism, and modern power structures 01:07:20 Conclusion New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on Tuesday, February 24, 2026)
Consciousness, spirituality, biography, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more
